LAT: Senator Leahy, incoming Senate judiciary chair, threatens to subpoena Bush officials

[DeepModem Mom]

Leahy threatens to subpoena Bush officials
The incoming Senate judiciary chair says he'll use the oversight tool if they refuse requests for papers and testimony.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
December 14, 2006

WASHINGTON — The incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday that he would subpoena Bush administration officials if they refused requests for documents and testimony, including two long-sought memos detailing its detention and treatment of terrorism suspects overseas.

The comments by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) represent the strongest and most specific statements yet directed at the White House on the investigative agenda of the Democratic leaders poised to assume control of Congress in January.

Leahy's threat shows the depth of frustration among Democrats who believe the administration has withheld crucial details about some of the most provocative anti-terrorism moves since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I expect to get the answers. If I don't … then I really think we should subpoena," Leahy said after a speech at Georgetown law school. "If the president wants to claim executive authority, then let him do so, and then we can determine where we go from there."

The remarks signaled a possible legal confrontation with the White House over what Democrats and many legal scholars view as its expansive and unchecked use of executive power. It also marks a possible return to the use of an oversight tool that has been all but forgotten by the Republican-led Congress over the first six years of the Bush administration....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-subpoenas14dec14,0,6079089.story?coll=la-home-nation

[wicket]

1. Give 'em hell Leahy!!!!!!

:kick:

[Donnachaidh]

2. what *threat*?

I watched that speech! I saw no *threat*. I heard a man say that he would use the powers he had as a Senator to get the information he asked for!

Geez! This guy should write for the soap operas. :rant:

[groovedaddy]

3. AS long as he holds them to account

I don't care what they call it!

[Kolesar]

11. I think Donna was saying the media was making the Democrats look like aggressors

When what Leahy is doing could just be described as normal governing.

[Donnachaidh]

19. Exactly!

[IWantAChange]

4. Should this come about the hue and cry from the right will be deafening

Imagine Chimpy and the the old Nixonite Cheney having to actually fess up or provide documentation - my guess is they will fight it to the bitter end under the guise of National Security.

[pat_k]

5. As Bush and Cheney chuckle and say "Gee, for a minute there, I though they might DO Something!"

. . .Threat of impeachment followed by a trip to the Hague is the ONLY threat meaningful to them.

[Flarney]

7. ...but subpoenas will lead to impleachment... n/m

[wryter2000]

12. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[pat_k]

16. {must investigate} = {don't have a case} = {nullify powerful case we HAVE}

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2653203&mesg_id=2653377

[Flarney]

30. I agree that we have all of the evidence we need, but

I think that formal investigations would be a great opportunity to put all of the evidence together as a means of making the case to the public. We need to convince the vast majority of Americans to demand impeachment to put the requisite pressure on enough GOP Senators to ensure a conviction. If we go for the jugular before the public is on board I think most center-to-right Americans will be resistant to the notion of impeachment. However, if we can lay out all of the evidence in plain site for everyone to see I think the majority of American will come to the same conclusion (that impeachment has never been more warranted). Speaking of warrants...get those ready, too, for after they're out of office.

[pat_k]

31. Accuse (introduce articles) and make the case in impeachment hearings.

Any hearings that are not explicitly held for the purpose of examining their high crimes and labeled "impeachment hearings" will garner little or no attention from the broadcast media (other than C-SPAN, which few Americans watch).

Since there is nothing to investigate, holding hearings to "investigate" while impeachment is "off the table" is extremely misleading and counter-productive, as described in my replies above.

The case for impeachment is simple. Bush and Cheney admit their crimes in their public statements. Feingold's Censure motiion could easily serve as a case for impeachment. When Bush and Cheney attempted to nullify the principle of consent -- the sole moral principle on which our Constitution is founded -- with their claims to Un-American and Unconstitutional unitary authoritarian power, they didn't excuse their crimes, they compounded them.

There is a reason that violators of Geneva are subject to the death penalty -- to give those with the power to inflict torture or wage a criminal war of aggression a compelling motive not to step anywhere near "the line."

Their unilateral attempts to circumvent the law are essentially claims of ignorance; ignorance they cannot claim because every legitimate expert both here and abroad told them what they were doing violated both Geneva and our own laws (Title 18 section 2441. War crimes). That judgment was upheld by their own stacked court.

• Ignorantia eorum quæ quis scire tenetur non excusat; ignorance of those things which one is bound to know excuses not.


• Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat; ignorance of the (or a) law, which every one is bound to know, excuses no man.


• Ignorantia legis neminem excusat; ignorance of law excuses no one.


• Ignorantia juris non excusat; ignorance of the law excuses not. Reason: Ignorare legis est lata culpa; to be ignorant of the law is gross neglect—five Latin sayings to the same effect, it is such a well established concept.

Their claims to the power to "redefine" Geneva are rightfully rejected by other parties to the treaty, just as we would reject any attempt by any other party to arbitrarily redefine the conventions so they could torture Americans.

Their attempt to "redefine" Geneva in and of itself is an admission of their intent to violate Geneva with Malice Aforethought.

Members of Congress who invoke this or that rationalization should consider this: Are you willing to tell those who are currently being tortured that they will just have to endure it for now because {rationalization of the day}.

[Flarney]

32. I just heard on Thom Hartmann (from 12/14) that ...

...the Resolution that was passed that supposedly authorized Bush to attack Iraq was not a blank check, that in fact there was a condition attached to the authorization: Bush was supposed to provide proof that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Apparently not long after the bombing began Bush did send Congress a letter saying they had the proof that was required (though never provided said proof, obviously, and finally admitted recently that there was no connection).

If this is true, why aren't all of the Dems that regret their Iraq war vote pointing to that lie and pin this all back on the Bush Administration? That seems like a smoking gun (to be put in the smoke-filled warehouse with the rest of the smoking guns) to me. Bush obviously lied about having proof of an Iraq/9-11 connection because there isn't (and never has been) any shred of evidence supporting that. Thus, the attack on Iraq was illegal even by the standards of the Resolution they passed for it.

I'd never heard about this "condition" before...anyone have any more details regarding this?

[pat_k]

34. New to me too. Will be asking around.

[pat_k]

35. BTW, per Newsweek, a majority already want impeachment to be a priority. . .

. . .for the new Congress.

http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html

[Der Blaue Engel]

9. I think that's implied here:

"If the president wants to claim executive authority, then let him do so, and then we can determine where we go from there."

:thumbsup:

[pat_k]

15. Their War Crimes and criminal surveillance program are public record.. . .

. . .It is difficult to imagine that "investigations" could possibly uncover anything more egregious that turning the United States into a War Criminal nation and nullifying the principle of consent with the fascist fantasy of arbitrary "unitary" dominion.

We are long past the need for "investigation" -- we have been for years.

Bush and Cheney confess to their crimes every time they play their "unitary" get out of jail free care (you don't need a get out of jail free card unless your actions demand that you "go directly to jail." They declare their orders to be violations of Geneva when they abuse their power to "redefine Geneva" (you don't need to reject and "redefine" Geneva unless you are violating it) .

Even our own Supreme Court -- a court they have stacked with their minions -- rejected their ridiculous "cover" and declared the conduct they ordered at Gitmo to be war crimes.

To do anything less than accuse and make the case (and for Members of the House, that means impeach) says just ONE thing: "We don't have a case for impeachment." To do anything less than accuse effectively exonerates them of ALL high crimes that are already public record.

Leahy's "threats" are no threat at all. When he resorts to such half-measures, he is dismissing the public's demands for impeachment and effectively exonerating Bush and Cheney of the many crimes that elected bodies, good government organizations, and countless ordinary citizens have brought against Bush and Cheney.

[Der Blaue Engel]

18. You can kill people and stack them in the front yard in full view of everyone

A team will still be required to investigate, and the evidence compiled, before you can be formally charged. To suggest there's no need for investigation because we all know what they've done is oversimplifying. Things simply need to be put on the record, and I, for one, can't wait to see what will unfold in January.

[pat_k]

27. The committee assigned the articles can gather any docs or testimony they deem necessary

Everything a member needs is at hand.

Staffers are more than capable of drafting articles and enumerating proofs.

Like any other resolution, the articles are assigned to the committee or committees with jurisdiction over the matter. If they think they need a select committee, they can introduce a resolution to empanel one. The assigned committee can gather any additional testimony or documentation they deem necessary. They can make their statements for the cameras. They can question witnesses. They can go on the 24 hour shows.

They just need to keep it simple, drop the euphemisms, and tell the truth (that we know ALL we need to know). They may be shocked to find that all they had to do to open the floodgates on the public's outrage at Bush and Cheney was to take that first step: accuse and call for removal.

The fact that they are conducting open-ended "oversight" investigations instead of targeted impeachment hearings undermines the Clear, Compelling, and Complete case for impeachment.

When Members of Congress finally wake up to their duty and make the straightforward case, the question "Why didn't they do this sooner?" will be a problem for them. They have already refused to accuse and demand impeachment for far too long. Continuing to delay when they have the power will compound the problem and give power to the opposition. ("If it were so straightforward, why didn't they accuse Bush and Cheney years ago? There's nothing new here. They don't have anything. They never did.")

Impeachment is a defensive act. It only takes one guilty verdict from the Senate to remove. The House could keep it VERY simple by taking up the specific charges one at a time. (e.g., Vote out articles related to the criminal surveillance. Make it clear to that the War Crimes are coming next. Senators may be more than happy to convict on the spying to escape scrutiny of their own complicity in passing the War Criminals Protection Act.)

If they are rationalizing their refusal to accuse and call for impeachment by claiming they want to "bring the public up to speed," they are undermining themselves on that too. The public will hear little or nothing about their various open-ended oversight hearings.

But, if the judiciary or a select committee takes up articles of impeachment and holds Impeachment Hearings, the content of those hearings will be all over the news and 24 hour news-ertainment broadcasts. If they want to tap into the public's outrage at Bush and generate public support for impeachment, impeachment hearings are the way to do it. Call the hearings anything else and they'll be completely ignored by all but the most politically engaged.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/18">Articles of Impeachment: "You just write them on a piece of paper"

[rodeodance]

6. the paper schredders are burning in DC

[aggiesal]

17. Shreading at Dick Cheney's office (Link Here) ...

This was just before the elections.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/31/shredding-with-dick/

[Art_from_Ark]

23. Maybe they've rehired this guy to help out

[AX10]

8. Right now, there isn't a right winger who is hoping for the worse...

for Senator Johnson.

:puke:

[seafan]

10. So, we can already predict how * will react to a few subpoenas:

From http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1552033,00.html">Time, October 29, 2006

If lame-duck Presidents are to achieve anything, they often have to look for ways to go around Congress, especially when it is in the hands of the other party. Clinton used Executive Orders and his bully pulpit to encourage school uniforms, impose ergonomic rules on employers and prevent mining, logging and development on 60 million acres of public land.

(((OH, THE HORROR!---editorial comment mine)))

White House press secretary Tony Snow says Bush may take the same bypass around Capitol Hill. "He told all of us, 'Put on your track shoes. We're going to run to the finish,'" Snow said. "He's going to be aggressive on a lot of fronts. He's been calling all his Cabinet secretaries and telling them, 'You tell me administratively everything you can do between now and the end of the presidency. I want to see your to-do list and how you expect to do it.' We're going to try to be as ambitious and bold as we can possibly be."

In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."

(emphasis mine)


Thanks for your usual input, Karl.

[wryter2000]

13. It's going to be a hell of a struggle

I've been wondering what happens if something goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS finds for the committee. Who would enforce the subpena? The Justice Department, aka Gonzales? This is going to get very interesting. I'm stocking up on :beer: and :popcorn:.

[Rex]

14. I expect Leahy and Waxman to get together and compare notes.

Hey BFEE...get ready...all I can say is

BENDOVER.

[flordehinojos]

20. Don't Threaten! JUST DO IT!

[cali]

21. er, you do understand, don't you,

that Senator Leahy can't do anything until he takes charge of the committee? Or do you have a problem with his giving a policy speech at GT?

[flordehinojos]

29. i think my mental IQ is below 64. thank you for explaining though.

i failed to see that giving the good senator an emotional push to do something he is threatening to do was the proper thing to do...anyhow, it seemed so to my 64 intelligence quotient.

p.s. do you like to patronize people? or just people with low IQs?



}(

[lovuian]

22. Oh Ya there we go

:woohoo:

[oasis]

24. Subpoenas do your stuff.(eom)

[Jeffersons Ghost]

25. K&R... and I thought the HEADLINE looked good! THE OP IS GREAT!

:bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce:
:bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce::toast::bounce:

[IndianaGreen]

26. The American people need to know the extent of the Bush regime's law breaking

I welcome Pat Leahy's upcoming hearings!

[Toots]

28. Maybe voting for Roberts and Alito will come back to bite him in the ass.

The courts have been packed so what does Bush* or Cheney have to worry about? They will ignore and the courts will say they have that right because we are "at war"...

[cali]

36. Senator Leahy did NOT vote for Alito

He fought against that appointment vigorously. Yes, he voted for Roberts, and he did so out of conviction, not political expediency. The politically expedient thing would have been for him to oppose Roberts, because that's what the majority of his contituents wanted. Get your facts straight and stop making false accusations.

[Vidar]

33. Glad to hear Leahy is still talking tough, as opposed to Pelosi & her ilk.